Possibly the most easily accesable of the Spalding Gray monologue-film library Gray's Anatomy chronicles Gray's retinal pucker problems. The interesting camera work and rather unique (in regards to the rest of the Gray Monologue Films) keeping a good feeling of progression. This progression can be found somewhat lacking by new-comers to the monologue scene, and thus this film solves a good deal of viewing problems in this simple aspect. The second aspect that makes this film highly accesible by new-comers in the stories told by the average Joe's. There are some good stories, some bad stories, and some disturbing stories; but none of the clips are allowed to stagnate by Soderburgh. This is probably the most powerful of the two aspects especially when teamed with the cuts from The Killing Fields give Gray's Anatomy a much more action oriented feeling than Monster in A Box or Spalding Gray Is Swimming To Cambodia. Gray's Anatomy is a good introduction to Spalding Gray but falls short of his earlier classics while remaining a film most definitely worthy of viewing. I would give it three and a half stars out of five where as Swimming and Monster I would give a four.

There is not much that beats a well told tale. If it is told through television or film, a good storyteller is worth more than a billion dollars of special effects. This little film tickles and delights and causes us to ponder the wonders of medicine and the human psyche.Spalding Gray has a "photographic memory" which allows him to describe things in fascinating detail. He also has a rather neurotic take on the world, just slightly askew from the norm...which allows us to enjoy a more entertaining vantage point. Above all, Mr. Gray loves to spin a tale. He delights in sharing stories and tying them all together in one general rant. This particular one-man-rant appealed to me even more than his others. Perhaps I liked it because I sought alternatives cures to my own illness and know all the crazies out there. Perhaps I liked it because I was raised by an optometrist and worked in his office a few summers...just enough to appreciate his eye condition (macular pucker) and his fear. Whatever the reason, I really enjoyed this and want to share it with all my friends now.

Made during the time when Steven Soderbergh was in the process of reinventing himself (see also "Schizopolis," made the same year), this is a wonderfully inventive film with a kinetic visual style to match Spalding Gray's verbal gymnastics. This is the kind of film that stays with you long after you've finished watching it, thanks to Gray's performance -- he is a terrific storyteller -- and Soderbergh's imaginative staging.Caveat: If you're at all squeamish when it comes to graphic descriptions of eye injuries, this film may not be your cup of tea.

The trick here is to make a monologue a filmic experience. Gray's stories are fascinating. He's interesting to watch, but an hour and a half looking at his face is a little much to ask an audience. Soderbergh tries to mix it up a little, varying the backgrounds and moving the camera around, but doesn't go far enough. The short sequences of eye trauma interviews filmed in black and white are like islands of relief in a sea of Spalding and I wish there were more of that sort of thing in the film.